DG> 2010/10/29 Jakob Korherr <jakob.korherr(a)gmail.com&gt; JK> Thanks, Andy! Frankly I also do not really like the term "insert" JK> here, because - as you said - it just does not fit that well. However JK> I really, really like "implements" - this is just soo much better :) JK> <h:commandButton ....> JK> <cc:implementsActionSource name="myActionSource" /> JK> </h:commandButton> JK> Really beautiful! DG> It seems that I am perhaps the only dissenting voice here, but I DG> don't care for this solution. DG> To those of us that understand the rationale for removing targets DG> and adding these cc:implements... tags, the new tags make perfect DG> sense. But to the uninitiated, they will be bewildering. What does DG> it mean for a button to "implements action source"? Buttons already DG> implement action source. IMO, targets are much easier to understand, DG> and to explain. DG> I understand the urge to remove the targets attribute based on their DG> OO impurity, but I think the solution could use some more DG> thought. There are already too many arcane oddities in JSF, whose DG> rationale is only intuited by high priests, and I hate to see us DG> adding more. Spoken like someone who remembers our December 2007 EG meeting when we finalized the "targets" concept. Yes, this needs more time. Ed -- | edward.burns(a)oracle.com | office: +1 407 458 0017 | homepage: | http://ridingthecrest.com/ | 6 work days until German Oracle User's Group Conference | 13 work days until GlassFish 3.1 Hard Code Freeze